One of your points is that you can shoot an epic in something other (and narrower) than 2.35. AGAIN, at the end of my FIRST POST, I state that even if the cinematography doesn't necessarily conform to the viewer's accustomed feel of what is considered "epic" or "cinematic" (i.e., 2.35) -- the movie definitely still can be epic or cinematic. SO WE AGREE.

Ergo you should have seen my post as being in agreement with you (it's not written as a rebuttal), but instead you wrote a post arguing against what I said.

The only real widescreen feature movies are the ones shot with anamorphic lenses. It is a lens cylindrical in shape instead of spherical. The curvature of the lens only goes across the horizontal plane and captures a wide angle shot and compresses it by 2x giving the 35mm frame a 1.2:1 aspect ratio that will be expanded again by 2x by the projector lens onto the screen into a 2.4:1 image.
You can search for anamorphic shot movies on IMDb in the Technical Specs page of each movie.
Movies shot with spherical lenses and then cropped to 2.4:1 are FAKE widescreens that have been shot the same way as movies with 1.85:1 ratio.
Of all the Marvel Studios movies, the anamorphic ones are only The Incredible Hulk and Thor.

IMAX cameras use spherical lenses, so they don't shoot in widescreen, but by using a 65mm horizontal negative film they achieve a clarity that is multiple times superior to 35mm. That's why Nolan loves it.

I've heard this complaint about a lot of things. They nerf Thor with the magic and might so Hulk isn't a redundant. And even Hulk is majorly nerfed, though in the face of opposition, he's not yielded so that's kind of good enough with the realm they've put all the other characters.

There are moments where the characters peek into the comic book extravagance, which you can see with the grounded characters. They choose this happy-medium character to a practical human and the comic book counterparts. Black Widow's small-caliber pistols in the midst of a battle with a highly technologically advanced army with armored space-serpents in tow. And definitely the same with Hawkeye, a dude with a bow and arrow, holding his own with limited projectiles and effect in reality is a relevant opposition to an alien army. Captain America goes from Olympian to super from time to time, like his dive from a half a dozen(?) stories and impacting the ground. As well as a nose diving plane crash while in the pilot seat. So there's lots of moments, but the movies do nerf these characters. Guardians even kind of does that, though I feel much less so with what the characters can and can't do.

As far as cinematic, it's subjective. The same people that want practical also may want spectacle. Finding the balance to appease the majority of audiences is hard. But you can never please everybody, and I think that's a detriment to a lot of movies' storytelling by creating an every(wo)man. If they don't have flaws, then they can get boring. As a kid, I loved characters' powers and that's what they were about. (Superficial outlook because I was young.) As I became an older reader--other than the characterization; substance of alter-ego/personality--I became interested by flaws and weaknesses. It makes it realistic, even in the realm of the fantastical. It creates stakes that're more palpable. And for some readers, a relatability. As well as an understanding of character motive and story relevance. Fallibility can give the superhero much more a sense of heroism.